“It’s YOU who get so worried about the supposed heat that might be fractionally warming the abyssal depths…”
_____
“Worried” is a bit strong. Concerned, yes, and mainly from what ocean experts are already seeing happening in the ocean. I don’t lose sleep over this, but I do pay attention.
The abyssal ocean is everything below 3000 meters. Some sources throw in the 1000 meters between 2000 and 3000.
Get real.
Abyssal waters around Antarctica – .03C per decade.
Most of the abyssal ocean – .003C per decade.
Manacker claims that I am proving “something you already KNOW has to be true”, whereas the reality is that I am incorporating all the skeptical arguments from people like Scafetta, and Wyatt&Curry, and others.
I had no prior reason to believe that their ideas would work, but for the fact that they are persistent and that their ideas were based on observational analysis, I figured it was worth a try to follow through.
And so we do indeed detect Curry’s Stadium Wave and Scafetta’s orbital factors. I am using the skeptics own home-made arguments and skeptics such as Manacker are chagrined. You should be rejoicing, Max Manacker.
Max_CH, if you don’t like the taste of tomatoes, I can understand your preference for greenhouse grown tomatoes that don’t have much tomato flavor.
Would you also like grains with less protein? If global temperatures don’t rise enough to be a detriment to grain crop yields ( an unlikely possibility), more C02 by itself would result in increased yields but lower protein content. Plentiful higher-carb grains could result in obesity being more of a problem than it already is. It would be nice if more CO2 gave the world something for nothing, but nature doesn’t work that way.
People who believe agriculture would benefit from a world that gets warmer and warmer should ask themselves why greenhouses are air-conditioned.
RGates
It is difficult to see how Trenberth’s abyssal missing heat will have any real world impact, whether the heat exists or not
tonyb
What on earth makes you think Trenberth’s missing heat is below 3000 meters?
If you think that, you are very very wrong.
R. Gates did not seem to know where you are going. He acts as though you were asking a genuine question. You were not.
And this has been pointed out before. Lol.
So you’ve accomplished nothing with dazzlingly game to nowhere. They have found a some of the missing heat, but not all of it. That is not surprising as Trenberth said from the beginning that some of it may have been reflected back to space.
The pools of water that participate in ENSO are warmer, which means that can effect surface temperature.
Walt,
Reply to the last comment on the thread (as I am doing now in replying to your comment)
Oh, maxie! You better let all those people who are spending money to build and maintain greenhouses that they are making a huge mistake. Especially those maroons who have been growing those terrible greenhouse tomatoes that are allegedly barely recognizable as tomatoes. Nobody is going to buy greenhouse tomatoes. Right, maxie?
There’s a pretty simple way to get you in the ballpark of transient climate sensitivity.
Just examine the temperature change in terms of the estimated GHG radiative forcing, which I’ve done here:
Conor
Here is the eling tide mill.
http://www.elingexperience.co.uk/Elingmill.html
The times when you can see it working are listed which gives away the fundamental problem with renewables, they only work at certain times. They have a small place in the energy mix, but unfortunately they can’t provide cheap and constant base load.
Tonyb
Pratt,
So you argue for ideological belief over science, eh?
The good news: ““Nuclear Power. The United States will continue to promote the safe and secure use of nuclear power worldwide through a variety of bilateral and multilateral engagements.”
The bad news: Judging by the practical impossibility of jumping through all the hoops that the regulatory bodies of the US Government have required over the last 30 odd years to license, build, fuel, operate, and dispose of the waste from a nuclear power plant, nuclear power cannot be used safely and securely.
“Note how many times the words “safe” and “safety” were used in the paragraph above. ”
Exactly. Translated from Political English into Common English they are saying that our next new nuclear plant will go on line not later than five years after it has been reasonably ascertained that Hell has frozen over.
Philip Haddad,
Even better, the population in 2010 was around four times that of 1910.
It also appears that per capita energy use has increased exponentially during that century. The growth rate probably looks remarkably like a hockey stick, but I leave such metaphors to those who least understand them.
The Warmists claim remarkable accuracy and precision measuring global surface temperatures, but also claim hat they cannot measure the difference in anthropogenically generated heat varying by a factor of 100 or so over a century (my assumption).
It is also to be noted that thermometers in earlier years were manually read, which presupposes that they were sited in close proximity to human habitation.
For any person claiming that the influence of radiant heat from a distance is irrelevant, I suggest stepping out into bright sunlight. The radiant heat source is over one hundred million kilometers away, but a thermometer will respond by showing a clear increase in temperature when moving from shade to full Sun.
Philip, you are right. The Warmists are wrong.
Live well and prosper,
Mike Flynn.
One topic hotting up with each passing month is the growing divergence between Earth’s temperature and solar activity.
Solar activity has now collapsed below 1850 levels, and the lack of any cooling is fast becoming a problem for advocates of a significant solar influence on global temperature.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/sidc-ssn/mean:132
If the collapse of solar activity below 1850 levels doesn’t cause any cooling, how can the Sun have caused any of the warming since 1850?
A few more years of this divergence and the idea that the Sun has a significant influence on global temperature might be finally put to bed.
When did a city-destroying asteroid, let alone a civilization one, last strike a city? Work out the odds and you find it’s a very very small chance of happening in even the next 500 years.
On the otherhand if carbon emissions are left uncurtailed it’s very likely we’ll see 700+ppm in the next 200 years.
I’m afraid someone would have to actually know what current albedo is and how it has varied in order to put anything to bed.
Coal and other carbon emission sources are responsible for elevating CO2 levels to the highest they’ve been for millions of years. Not being able to measure future effects (no time machine!) is not a convincing argument that such carbon emissions are ok.
My post was a parody of “the pause” you understand, concerning a different “pause” that isn’t mentioned at all.
lolwot, that has been hot for a while. It seems that all sun spots sun spot cycles are not created equally. That means that the ssn to TSI conversion is iffy at best and the conversion from ssn to spectral irradiance is even mo iffy. A major part of the iffiness is the magnetic field orientation influence on the stratospheric circulation. As it currently stands, sun spot number needs a major do over to get folks in the same library.
Yes. From Professor Hans von Storch and cultural scientist Werner Krauss (‘the authors’):
The authors reveal how they feel about alarmist scientists. Since the early 2000s they felt “something was amiss”.
“Was the climate apocalypse really at our doorstep as we could read in the media? Or were they exaggerating in their depiction of the results coming from climate science? [...]
The climate scientist [von Storch] had the suspicion that climate science was dragging around a ‘cultural rucksack’ that was influencing the interpretation of the data. The cultural scientist [Krauss], with regards to the appearances by some climate scientists in the media and the roles they were readily assigned, was reminded of weather-wizards and shamans of foreign cultures.”
And later:
“Without really being aware of it, climate scientists had taken over the role of prophets: They predicted the imminent end-of-the-world if society did not fundamentally change soon, reduced its emissions, and behaved more sustainably with the environment. The problem was not only the message, but also that they were often completely way in over their heads with the role as mediator between nature and society.”
And Van Storch is a climate scientist, so this is an inside view too!
